This preprint is under consideration at BMC Pharmacology and Toxicology. A preprint is a preliminary version of a manuscript that has not completed peer review at a journal. Research Square does not conduct peer review prior to posting preprints. The posting of a preprint on this server should not be interpreted as an endorsement of its validity or suitability for dissemination as established information or for guiding clinical practice.
Learn more about In Review
Research Article
Rafael Seitenfus
Hospital Santa Rita, Santa Casa de Misericórdia
Corresponding Author
License:
This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License. Read Full License
Background: PIPAC (Pressurized Intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy) acts by applying aerosolized chemotherapy in the peritoneal cavity, enhancing tissue penetration of chemotherapeutic agents. This method of chemotherapy delivery still raises concerns related to the operating room's environmental exposure, arousing discussions related to the occupational risks of this technique. This work aims to demonstrate the pattern of aerosolization distribution in the absence of safety mechanisms in an operating room.
Methods: A cross-sectional experimental work was carried out of 31 aerosol applications. Aerosolization was performed with a 1% aqueous solution of caffeine Cellulose. Nitrate membranes were used to capture the concentration of caffeine in different sites within the operating room for 5 periods of fixed exposure times.
Results: 930 samples obtained in 31 rounds of aerosolization. Comparing the changes in concentration per minute between the different time intervals, there were statistically significant differences between the 0-2 minutes interval and the 15-30 interval (P <0.001). Surgeon site show a significant difference between the times (P=0.010). There were no differences between changes in concentrations in the time intervals for the anesthetist site (P = 0.094). At the injector site, a statistically significant difference (P <0.001). The time assessment between 30-35 exposure showed a median of 0.
Conclusions: The study pointed out that the moment of greatest risk of contamination of the surgical environment occurs during aerosolization, especially during the first 15 minutes after the start of aerosolization. The sites that were most exposed to contamination were the patient, the surgeon and the injector, respectively.
Keywords
carcinomatosis, occupational, Occupational safety, PIPAC
Figure 1
Figure 2
Competing interest reported. Dear Editor, I would like inform that Rafael Seitenfus, Eduardo Dipp de Barros and Paulo Roberto Walter Ferreira have a part of the patent device. (Br-1020180757415, Br-3020180557379)
Role of the Funding Source: “Bhiosupply company donated the ten devices but they have not sponsored this article.” Thanks for your attention.
This is a list of supplementary files associated with this preprint. Click to download.
Loading...
Badges
Prescreen
This manuscript passed our Prescreen assessment
Complete author information
Appropriate declaration statements
Potential risks to human health
Prescreen
Peer Review Timeline
CURRENT STATUS: Under Review
Version 1
Posted 19 Mar, 2021
No community comments so far
Review #1 received
Received 06 Apr, 2021
Reviewer #2 agreed
On 04 Apr, 2021
Reviewer #9 agreed
On 25 Mar, 2021
Reviewer #10 agreed
On 25 Mar, 2021
Reviewer #1 agreed
On 25 Mar, 2021
Reviewer #8 agreed
On 25 Mar, 2021
Reviewer #11 agreed
On 25 Mar, 2021
Reviewers invited
Invitations sent on 18 Mar, 2021
Editor assigned
On 18 Mar, 2021
Editor invited
On 18 Mar, 2021
Submission checks complete
On 18 Mar, 2021
First submitted
On 11 Mar, 2021
Metrics
Comments: 0
PDF Downloads: ...
HTML Views: ...
Subject Areas
Toxicology
Learn more about our company.
This preprint is under consideration at BMC Pharmacology and Toxicology. A preprint is a preliminary version of a manuscript that has not completed peer review at a journal. Research Square does not conduct peer review prior to posting preprints. The posting of a preprint on this server should not be interpreted as an endorsement of its validity or suitability for dissemination as established information or for guiding clinical practice.
Learn more about In Review
Research Article
Rafael Seitenfus
Hospital Santa Rita, Santa Casa de Misericórdia
Corresponding Author
Badges
Prescreen
This manuscript passed our Prescreen assessment
Complete author information
Appropriate declaration statements
Potential risks to human health
Prescreen
Peer Review Timeline
CURRENT STATUS: Under Review
Version 1
Posted 19 Mar, 2021
No community comments so far
Review #1 received
Received 06 Apr, 2021
Reviewer #2 agreed
On 04 Apr, 2021
Reviewer #9 agreed
On 25 Mar, 2021
Reviewer #10 agreed
On 25 Mar, 2021
Reviewer #1 agreed
On 25 Mar, 2021
Reviewer #8 agreed
On 25 Mar, 2021
Reviewer #11 agreed
On 25 Mar, 2021
Reviewers invited
Invitations sent on 18 Mar, 2021
Editor assigned
On 18 Mar, 2021
Editor invited
On 18 Mar, 2021
Submission checks complete
On 18 Mar, 2021
First submitted
On 11 Mar, 2021
Metrics
Comments: 0
PDF Downloads: ...
HTML Views: ...
Subject Areas
Toxicology
License:
This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License. Read Full License
Background: PIPAC (Pressurized Intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy) acts by applying aerosolized chemotherapy in the peritoneal cavity, enhancing tissue penetration of chemotherapeutic agents. This method of chemotherapy delivery still raises concerns related to the operating room's environmental exposure, arousing discussions related to the occupational risks of this technique. This work aims to demonstrate the pattern of aerosolization distribution in the absence of safety mechanisms in an operating room.
Methods: A cross-sectional experimental work was carried out of 31 aerosol applications. Aerosolization was performed with a 1% aqueous solution of caffeine Cellulose. Nitrate membranes were used to capture the concentration of caffeine in different sites within the operating room for 5 periods of fixed exposure times.
Results: 930 samples obtained in 31 rounds of aerosolization. Comparing the changes in concentration per minute between the different time intervals, there were statistically significant differences between the 0-2 minutes interval and the 15-30 interval (P <0.001). Surgeon site show a significant difference between the times (P=0.010). There were no differences between changes in concentrations in the time intervals for the anesthetist site (P = 0.094). At the injector site, a statistically significant difference (P <0.001). The time assessment between 30-35 exposure showed a median of 0.
Conclusions: The study pointed out that the moment of greatest risk of contamination of the surgical environment occurs during aerosolization, especially during the first 15 minutes after the start of aerosolization. The sites that were most exposed to contamination were the patient, the surgeon and the injector, respectively.
Figure 1
Figure 2
Loading...